> there wasn't a ton of explanation given beyond the general vibe of "ai bad"

I'm very bullish on AI, but vibe-porting the piece of software you're the main maintainer over a few weeks without letting anyone in the community know and pushing that as a fait accompli to both your userbase and your open source community is definitely the kind of behavior that makes you not trustworthy enough to depend on.

The vibecoded rewrite led to the deprecation of support for Bun but I believe Deno was already the default. Also Bun had the note “No permission restrictions available. Scripts have full file system and network access.”

If I remember correctly, Deno was always priority number 1 due to having a permissions system. Bun's removal due to the rewrite had people complaining using Deno as the focus as Deno's development shifted towards being LLM heavy. Node now supporting permissions would likely be the priority now.

There was a ton of criticism beyond "ai bad". A complete rewrite, in a different language, is a brand new project. It doesn't have any where near the hardening as the previous version thousands of deployments. If they had done that exact same thing but without AI people still would have been upset.

> As I recall, they picked Deno over Bun during the whole vibecoding rewrite fiasco from six months ago, and there wasn't a ton of explanation given beyond the general vibe of "ai bad".

Your comment is baffling. Either you lost track of the story or you've opted to post a very simplistic take on the whole Bun fiasco. Bun's ill-advised rewrite had zero technical grounds and the radical drop in release cadence in spite of all the AI backing suggests the project's foundation lays on shaky ground.